ObamaCare flexibility: It’s a hoax

President Obama told a meeting of state governors today that he backs waivers giving states “flexibility” to work out their own faith vis a vis ObamaCare. But that flexibility isn’t all it’s suggested.

Hosting governors of both parties on his own turf, Obama offered them what they often request: more flexibility as they cope with painful budget dilemmas. Declaring that he would “go to bat for whatever works,” Obama supported letting states propose their own health care plans by 2014 — three years faster than the current law allows.

Yet this would be no change to the fundamental requirements of a federal law that has divided the nation and prompted about half the states to try to overturn it through lawsuits. To gain new powers, states would first have to convince Washington that their plans would cover as many people, provide equally affordable and comprehensive care and not add to the federal deficit.

Basically, you can do what you want as long as you meet my goals, more or less my way. But his own plan doesn’t stack up to his own rules. ObamaCare doesn’t “cover” people, so much as it forces people to buy insurance or pay a fine. If they pay the fine, they’re still not covered. It doesn’t bend the affordability cost curve (except maybe to bend it up more steeply), and it does add to the federal deficit. Fortunately, the Republicans in the room didn’t seem to buy Obama’s new feint.

Around the same time the president was telling governors they could seek ObamaCare waivers, he had his PR staff telling liberal supporters why the waivers would end up fulfilling progressive dreams:

Health care advisers Nancy-Ann DeParle and Stephanie Cutter stressed on the off-record call that the rule change would allow states to implement single-payer health care plans — as Vermont seeks to — and true government-run plans, like Connecticut’s Sustinet.

The source on the call summarizes the officials’ point — which is not one the Administration has sought to make publically — as casting the new “flexibility” language as an opportunity to try more progressive, not less expansive, approaches on the state level.

“They are trying to split the baby here: on one hand tell supporters this is good for their pet issues, versus a message for the general public that the POTUS is responding to what he is hearing and that he is being sensible,” the source emails.

Obviously, that’s why the president praised Mitt Romney during today’s events. Romney implemented MassCare. Obama was putting the Moderate Face on for a while. That MassCare has proven to be an expensive failure doesn’t seem to be a problem.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Click here to view the 9 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

9 Comments, 3 Threads

1.
Itzaak Sirius

SEC. 1555 ø42 U.S.C. 18115. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS.
No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health
insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by
this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by
this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty
or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate
in such programs.

You are forced to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty, but it doesn’t have to be a federal policy.

Separately, the government establishes thousands of rules that make it impossible for private businesses or states to offer health insurance without going bankrupt.

But it certainly isn’t the governments fault that everybody has to move buy their (the only) plans or pay a penalty. It says in black and white that they don’t have to. And if private insurers aren’t willing to go bankrupt, what good are they anyway.

I’m telling you, these people DEVOTE THEIR LIVES to thinking this shit up.

But, as is stated in the portion I posted, there is no penalty. And I couldn’t really follow the rest of what you said because there were no specific facts or examples, so I don’t know why you think the ACA is going to make everyone go bankrupt.

If there is no penalty, why did Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold tell Senator John Ensign the legislation includes a $1,900 penalty for not having “acceptable” insurance? And that failure to comply could result in a year in prison or a $25,000 fine?

Who’s feeding you the BS that there’s no penalty? Companies and unions are getting waivers so they don’t have to comply with the law, and the people who wrote the law say it includes a penalty — who’s lying to you, saying there’s not?

As you can plainly read in the above excerpt from the legislation itself, there are no penalties. But, from what I can see on this site and others like it, you all aren’t interested in facts; you simply believe what you want to believe. So, go ahead, be my guest. Have fun.

The problem with your citation on a single, out-of-context paragraph from the legislation is that others have looked at the law and found penalties. So many have found such large penalties that they’ve said the could not provide healthcare insurance at all, so the Obama administration has provided them with waivers. If, as you claim, the bit you cite means there are no penalties whatsoever, why do others — including those who helped write it — say otherwise? If, as you claim, there are no penalties, why are their waivers being granted to unions and corporations?

Don’t dismiss this, explain it. Or admit that you cannot, and that whoever told you that paragraph means there are no penalties either lied to you or was lied to.